Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 11, 2013, 10:57 AM   #1
flavr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Calling all GTX 680mx / 675mx owners...please post VALLEY benchmarks!

Calling all GTX 680mx / 675mx owners...please post VALLEY benchmarks! You can download it here:

http://unigine.com/products/valley/

it has some really detailed gorgeous graphics that but the cards through its paces! I have a 675mx and need something to compare my benchmark to.

Do it with settings:

1920x1080 RESOLUTION AT 16:9
antialias x2
ultra detail
v-sync OFF all other boxes checked ON

post your final benchmark results with a screenshot, thanks!

Last edited by flavr; Aug 11, 2013 at 11:03 AM.
flavr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 11:56 AM   #2
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
2012 iMac, i7 3.4Ghz, 32GB RAM, Geforce MX 680GTX, Windows 7 64bit, 320.49 Nvidia drivers, settings as you listed them:

Stock clocks, vsync ON+triple buffering: 43.7fps, score 1829, min fps 22.3, max fps: 65.3

225/350 clocks, vsync ON+triple buffering: 48.5fps, score 2028, min fps: 25.6, max fps: 60.5

Stock clocks, vsync OFF: 44.0fps, score 1840, min fps 22.1, max fps 88.4

225/350 clocks, vsync OFF, 55fps, score 2332, min fps 26.4, max fps 112.3

As an side, having vsync set to off does nothing for our iMac displays except heat up our GPUs more than necessary. The iMac cannot display more than 60fps.

As an addendum, the minimum frames per second is irrelevant for the most part. It drops hugely when it switches from one scene to the next, much more than actually during the bench.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com

Last edited by WilliamG; Aug 11, 2013 at 03:05 PM.
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 12:45 PM   #3
richard13
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Mill Creek, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
As an side, having vsync set to off does nothing for our iMac displays except heat up our GPUs more than necessary. The iMac cannot display more than 60fps.
Is this specifically regarding the 2012 model or iMacs in general? I haven't heard this before.
__________________
iMac Late 2013 27", i7 3.5 GHz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD
MacBook Pro Late 2013 15", i7 2.3 GHz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD
iPhone 5 White & Silver 32GB
richard13 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 01:47 PM   #4
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard13 View Post
Is this specifically regarding the 2012 model or iMacs in general? I haven't heard this before.
No, this is for ANY display at 60hz, or 120hz, or whatever. 60hz = 60fps, 120hz = 120fps. So vsync on a 120hz display would lock the display to 120fps. Our iMacs are 60hz, as are most monitors. So anything beyond 60fps is absolutely, 100% pointless. This isn't a debate about whether you or I can see the difference. There is NO difference. All you get with vsync off is screen tearing and an unnecessarily hot GPU, since the GPU has to render those frames internally despite the fact that the display device (iMac, in this case) can't show all those frames.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 02:19 PM   #5
richard13
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Mill Creek, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
No, this is for ANY display at 60hz, or 120hz, or whatever. 60hz = 60fps, 120hz = 120fps. So vsync on a 120hz display would lock the display to 120fps. Our iMacs are 60hz, as are most monitors. So anything beyond 60fps is absolutely, 100% pointless. This isn't a debate about whether you or I can see the difference. There is NO difference. All you get with vsync off is screen tearing and an unnecessarily hot GPU, since the GPU has to render those frames internally despite the fact that the display device (iMac, in this case) can't show all those frames.
Thanks, this is something I didn't really understand until now. I found this interesting article. Page 9 is where it covers the current topic. It seems to agree with your basic premise but then goes on to show that the full answer can be more complicated. Thanks again for your reply.
__________________
iMac Late 2013 27", i7 3.5 GHz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD
MacBook Pro Late 2013 15", i7 2.3 GHz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD
iPhone 5 White & Silver 32GB
richard13 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2013, 03:03 PM   #6
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard13 View Post
Thanks, this is something I didn't really understand until now. I found this interesting article. Page 9 is where it covers the current topic. It seems to agree with your basic premise but then goes on to show that the full answer can be more complicated. Thanks again for your reply.
Right, I was giving the basic premise, but you had to go and make things more complicated If you're going to use vsync set to on, you need a way to triple-buffer to avoid exactly what is explained on page 9 of that article.

Enter, D3DOverrider. Download it, enable triple buffering. Problem solved.

I believe Far Cry 3 has this option of GPU buffering built right into the game, but most games, for no reason I can think of - don't have this option, so you need a global app like D3DOverrider.

And, on that note, you can see my benchmarks above. I need to edit, since I didn't specify I was using triple buffering.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 03:21 AM   #7
Serban
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
so again is better to check the vsync or not?
i have a 21.5" 650M iMac
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2013, 11:58 AM   #8
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
so again is better to check the vsync or not?
i have a 21.5" 650M iMac
Check vsync, run d3doverrider with triple buffering.
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 01:46 PM   #9
Shane1905
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-08-13 at 19.41.44.png
Views:	193
Size:	3.38 MB
ID:	428214
This is from my 680mx, how does it compare to the 675mx?
Shane1905 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 07:43 PM   #10
Dirtyharry50
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by flavr View Post

it has some really detailed gorgeous graphics that but the cards through its paces! I have a 675mx and need something to compare my benchmark to.
Could you post your results too? I'm curious how it compares.
Dirtyharry50 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 08:47 PM   #11
flavr
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Yep...here are my results...and iMac specs

VERY CLOSE to the 680mx as I suspected
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-08-13 at 9.46.18 PM.png
Views:	28
Size:	84.2 KB
ID:	428274   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-08-13 at 9.52.24 PM.jpg
Views:	124
Size:	227.2 KB
ID:	428275  

Last edited by flavr; Aug 13, 2013 at 08:54 PM.
flavr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 10:07 PM   #12
pastrychef
macrumors 68020
 
pastrychef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York City, NY
Just for comparison sake, here are some results from my Mac Pro 5,1 with two different CPUs and two different GPUs. All tests were done in the "extreme" presets.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2.40 to 2.93.jpg
Views:	98
Size:	958.6 KB
ID:	428284  
__________________
Mac Pro 5,1 3.2x8 - 48GB - GTX 680 - Crucial M4 SSD - Dell 3007WFP-HC
Alu MacBook 5,1 2GHz C2D - 8GB - 9400M
Mac mini 2.33GHz C2D - 4GB - GMA950 - 2 Drobos - SS4200 (unRAID)
iPhone 5 + iPhone 4 S⃣
pastrychef is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 11:21 PM   #13
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by flavr View Post
Yep...here are my results...and iMac specs

VERY CLOSE to the 680mx as I suspected
It's a benchmark, and not a very good one, either.

You'll find some differences at higher resolutions, too.

http://barefeats.com/imac12g4.html

Run the benchmark at 2560x1440 and see how you do. I game at 1440p, and it seems to me the 680GTX is the way to go.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 01:40 AM   #14
Dirtyharry50
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
It's a benchmark, and not a very good one, either.

You'll find some differences at higher resolutions, too.

http://barefeats.com/imac12g4.html

Run the benchmark at 2560x1440 and see how you do. I game at 1440p, and it seems to me the 680GTX is the way to go.
I just read that article and the test results which are flawed and they admit to that. Then I read the article linked within it which also contains less flawed results, close enough for our purposes here though.

My take after looking at that stuff is the 675MX is a decent GPU but it is lacking most especially in the area of video ram. I don't think anyone planning to play games for the next few years on a computer should be buying any GPU with less than 2 gigs anymore because as video ram usage by games continues to increase, there will be a performance hit for having 1 gig or less. To me personally, that represents the biggest reason to fork over another $150. for the upgrade to the 680MX which is not a huge upgrade over the 675MX for gaming purposes otherwise although certainly it is faster. Please note I said, "huge" there. I mean, it is not twice as fast and the benchmarks bear that out. It was around 20 or so percent faster using features you'd expect to see in new games. However, and this goes back to the video ram issue, the benchmarks used about 900 MB of video ram. There would be a more substantial difference if they used more memory if it was available as some games already do. How much? I don't know to be honest. I have not seen benchmarks highlighting the difference but they would be interesting to see.

Anyway, I wouldn't rain on this guy's parade. He was looking to see if his card was pretty good compared to the top end and for the most part, it is. There's always going to be something better if not right now, pretty soon - like the next refresh upcoming for example and the one after that, etc.
Dirtyharry50 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 07:52 AM   #15
Mac32
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
It seems some people just wont admit the truth in this... Gaming at a non-native resolution at the iMac looks like crap compared to 1440p, and >1gb onboard vram is necessary for a solid performance on a high resolution like 1440p. Just try to play a recent AAA game and see how much ram it uses.
Now, if you have very little interest in games, and only play like independent type games or older stuff for nostalgia, then 675MX will do nicely. Even if those are your goals, when you do get that great looking 27'' iMac screen, you'll want to play more recent games believe me. Another thing is framerate. You need 40+ framerate in games to have a decent response while playing. (Hardcore FPS gamers prefer 60-80fps+ and 120hz monitors.)
Playing in 1440p is very demanding on hardware, and a 680MX is the minimum requirement for a decent gaming experience with modern games IMO.
Mac32 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 10:25 AM   #16
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac32 View Post
It seems some people just wont admit the truth in this... Gaming at a non-native resolution at the iMac looks like crap compared to 1440p, and >1gb onboard vram is necessary for a solid performance on a high resolution like 1440p. Just try to play a recent AAA game and see how much ram it uses.
Now, if you have very little interest in games, and only play like independent type games or older stuff for nostalgia, then 675MX will do nicely. Even if those are your goals, when you do get that great looking 27'' iMac screen, you'll want to play more recent games believe me. Another thing is framerate. You need 40+ framerate in games to have a decent response while playing. (Hardcore FPS gamers prefer 60-80fps+ and 120hz monitors.)
Playing in 1440p is very demanding on hardware, and a 680MX is the minimum requirement for a decent gaming experience with modern games IMO.
Agreed. 1080p on the 27" 1440p iMac is uglier than ugly. I'd rather turn down some details and run 1440p than have it cranked at 1080p.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:22 AM   #17
Shane1905
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Here is the gtx680mx running at native.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-08-14 at 17.13.31.png
Views:	97
Size:	1.75 MB
ID:	428361  
Shane1905 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:31 AM   #18
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane1905 View Post
Here is the gtx680mx running at native.
I'll get some results on that when I reboot to Windows.

Also, it's important to note that the GTX 680MX has a huge overclock potential. I'm not sure about the 675, but it's easy to get a 25% fps boost on the 680 with a small overclock. Temperatures only go up by about 2 degrees, too. 225 clock, 350 memory is a 100% stable 24/7 overclock.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:34 AM   #19
Shane1905
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
I'll get some results on that when I reboot to Windows.

Also, it's important to note that the GTX 680MX has a huge overclock potential. I'm not sure about the 675, but it's easy to get a 25% fps boost on the 680 with a small overclock. Temperatures only go up by about 2 degrees, too. 225 clock, 350 memory is a 100% stable 24/7 overclock.
I'll have to give it a go in windows too. Both mine were carried out in OSX. I did notice my GPU getting pretty toasty will running these, touching 90 degrees which I thought was the upper limit for the 680mx.
Shane1905 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:45 AM   #20
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane1905 View Post
I'll have to give it a go in windows too. Both mine were carried out in OSX. I did notice my GPU getting pretty toasty will running these, touching 90 degrees which I thought was the upper limit for the 680mx.
Interesting. Not sure I hit 90C even with my overclock. It was close, though. 88C, if I recall correctly. I'm working right now, so will get it it in the next day or so and report back findings.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 11:55 AM   #21
Shane1905
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
Interesting. Not sure I hit 90C even with my overclock. It was close, though. 88C, if I recall correctly. I'm working right now, so will get it it in the next day or so and report back findings.
What a difference windows makes! I barely hit 80 degrees running both these at native and 1080 whilst in bootcamp. 1080 does 100% suck balls compared to native though. Almost like stepping back into 90's TV o_O
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1.PNG
Views:	15
Size:	37.4 KB
ID:	428366   Click image for larger version

Name:	2.PNG
Views:	10
Size:	36.3 KB
ID:	428367  
Shane1905 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:20 PM   #22
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane1905 View Post
What a difference windows makes! I barely hit 80 degrees running both these at native and 1080 whilst in bootcamp. 1080 does 100% suck balls compared to native though. Almost like stepping back into 90's TV o_O
Yep, much more in line with my results (see second post). I seriously don't know why anyone with these high-end iMacs uses OS X for gaming. People spend all that money on a gaming videocard just to use OS X to play? Madness!
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:32 PM   #23
Shane1905
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post
Yep, much more in line with my results (see second post). I seriously don't know why anyone with these high-end iMacs uses OS X for gaming. People spend all that money on a gaming videocard just to use OS X to play? Madness!
I know what you mean, the only time I game on OSX is when im not bothered about graphics and just wanna kill some time alla Portal 2 . Everything else (now that I have it working) is through bootcamp. Its a shame it has to be this way as I was hopeing never to use windows at home again... but hey ho, games must be played
Shane1905 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:46 PM   #24
WilliamG
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane1905 View Post
I know what you mean, the only time I game on OSX is when im not bothered about graphics and just wanna kill some time alla Portal 2 . Everything else (now that I have it working) is through bootcamp. Its a shame it has to be this way as I was hopeing never to use windows at home again... but hey ho, games must be played
Oh don't get me wrong. In a perfect world all these games would run in OS X, and BETTER than they do in Windows.
__________________
iMac, MacBook Air, Mac mini, iPad, iPhone, 55-11
www.bighugenerd.com
WilliamG is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 02:43 PM   #25
flavr
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Thanks for posting guys!

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane1905 View Post
Here is the gtx680mx running at native.
When I get home I will run a test at native 1440 with the 675mx...it will be in OSX so we can compare your OSX results to get and apples to apples comparison...Im guessing Ill get awful close to your 1183 score
flavr is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GTX 675MX or GTX 680MX lixe iMac 92 Jun 30, 2013 12:03 AM
Request: Do you have a 675MX or 680MX equipped iMac? cal6n iMac 10 May 10, 2013 07:26 AM
GTX 680MX and GTX 675MX reviews to share Red Fuji iMac 0 Apr 19, 2013 03:59 PM
675mx vs 680mx benchmarks closer than you might think! flavr iMac 5 Mar 24, 2013 11:12 PM
675mx vs, 680mx SDH3BLK iMac 27 Jan 8, 2013 09:58 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC